[battery] Next steps to PR (was: implementation testing report)

Zhiqiang, thanks for the update to the test suite

Anssi and everyone

Once we have reviewed and agree that the test suite is complete and tests suitable, the steps to REC will be a Transition from CR to PR

Requirements at https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#rec-pr

At the minimum we should:

1. Create a summary showing that all issues have been resolved and that we have had wide review.

2. Create a PR draft including updated links to the updated test cases and results, and new status section outlining any relevant information, including information about the review, issues, and any comments on implementation experience. (Note that there were no features 'at risk' in the CR draft.)

With the draft and issue resolutions in hand (and other requirements met, see https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#transition-reqs ) 
we can schedule a Transition call and arrange for AC review.

Let's discuss on this week's call and with Dom before setting a publication date, especially to make sure we've closed out all issues.

We will need a formal group decision to advance to PR, including a decision about the length of the AC review. I can send a CfC once we have reviewed the status on the call.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Chair, W3C Device APIs WG (DAP)

www.fjhirsch.com
@fjhirsch






> On Feb 26, 2016, at 7:11 AM, Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> On 26 Feb 2016, at 11:12, Zhang, Zhiqiang <zhiqiang.zhang@intel.com> wrote:
>> 
>> After hard debugging and revising, we now have a good quality test suite at
>> 
>> http://w3c-test.org/battery-status/
>> 
>> I run all the tests with Firefox Nightly 47 and Chrome beta 49 on both Windows and Android, and generated an implementation testing report snapshot with failure analysis at
>> 
>> https://w3c.github.io/test-results/battery-status/20160226.html
>> 
>> This report shows that the Battery Status API has got 2 implementations, so that we can advance the specification to next.
> 
> Zhiqiang - thanks for completing the test suite and tracing down the root causes for failures. This API was definitely not the easiest to test, given it involved manual tests that were time consuming and not easy to debug due to hardware interactions.
> 
> Frederick - please let us know the next steps to take to ensure we can advance the Battery Status API to Proposed Recommendation in a timely manner. I was planning to update the test suite link and stage a PR draft for publication. Let me know the proposed publication date, and if SoTD section should be amended for PR, or if other changes are needed.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Anssi

Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2016 23:37:39 UTC